Why some reject the historical Christ.

[Maggsy]

Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
follow this line of reasoning. All historical sources are biased to
some degree, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the
bath water. Do skeptics believe Roman documents when they speak about
Romans? Do you believe Jewish historians when they speak about Jewish
history? If so why not believe Christian historians we they record
Church history.

[random]

I'll start with a simple question: What exactly do you mean when you
say "historical Jesus"? What are the differences between the
historical Jesus and the Biblical Jesus?

[Maggsy]

On Oct 14, 10:59 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll start with a simple question: What exactly do you mean when you
> say "historical Jesus"? What are the differences between the
> historical Jesus and the Biblical Jesus?
>

To me they are one and the same, but to others the historical Jesus
would be many different things. They would believe though that he
existed about 2000 years ago on this planet according to the evidence.

> On Oct 14, 11:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
> > about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> > because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> > Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> > believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> > superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> > prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> > written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> > but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> > skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> > The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> > every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> > reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> > follow this line of reasoning. All historical sources are biased to
> > some degree, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the
> > bath water. Do skeptics believe Roman documents when they speak about
> > Romans? Do you believe Jewish historians when they speak about Jewish
> > history? If so why not believe Christian historians we they record

> > Church history.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
> about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> follow this line of reasoning.

We do reject some Roman compilations. Do you believe in Ovid's
Metamorphoses and that there was a historical Scylla?
http://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.html
http://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.8.eighth.html

> All historical sources are biased to
> some degree, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the
> bath water. Do skeptics believe Roman documents when they speak about
> Romans?

No; skeptics don't accept the Aenid or the story of Romulus and Remus
as history.

> Do you believe Jewish historians when they speak about Jewish
> history?

Skeptics don't accept the parting of the Red sea as an accurate part
of Jewish history.

[Dag Yo]

> Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> existed?

Let me start by saying (perhaps a bit ahead of myself that) "refuse to
believe" isn't what any of us are doing. Since we really don't have
any solid reliable evidence for Jesus' actual existence (and have only
some books filled with innacuracies, implausibilities, and
contradictions -- and a history of very similar stories of other holy
men that came before); we simply do not accept the bible's word for it
that Jesus existed. And that is a very much different thing than
merely "refusing" to believe something.

On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[4praise]

Here is an article that I think partially explains it.

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Dont_Know_Much_Bout_History.asp

25% of teens surveyed in England did not believe that Winston
Churchill was a real person :-)

On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[random]

On Oct 15, 12:03 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 10:59 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll start with a simple question: What exactly do you mean when you
> > say "historical Jesus"? What are the differences between the
> > historical Jesus and the Biblical Jesus?
>
> To me they are one and the same, but to others the historical Jesus
> would be many different things. They would believe though  that he
> existed about 2000 years ago on this planet according to the evidence.
>

There is a lot of difference if you are talking about historical
evidences.
So far, there are no evidences at all to any miracles performed by
anyone, and that includes the stories of the NT.

As for a man names Yeshua who happened to be a (relatively) liberal
and famous religious leader more or less 2,000 years ago, I'm not sure
what the current evidences are, but to be very frank, it doesn't
interest me much. Even if such character really existed, it means
nothing both to Theists and atheists, although it might be a great
historical discovery.

[MEG]

Refuse to believe? Kinda like I refuse to believe that the Green
Hornet ever existed? Superman? The Hulk? Batman? Amazing how closed
minded some people can be, isn't it. [sic]

On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
existed?

 

Two reasons.

1. http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-historiocity-of-christ---acharya-s

2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --Carl Sagan.

It boils down to the fact that most historical information does not require us to worship an imaginary sky fairy and believe in "miracles" which defy the laws of physics.

When that is the expectation, then you should be able to not only prove the existence of the imaginary sky fairy but the truth of the doctrine and it's miracles which defy the laws of physics.

--
Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.

"We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard."  ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764

"Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert Ingersoll.

[Maggsy]

On Oct 14, 11:08 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
> > about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> > because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> > Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> > believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> > superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> > prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> > written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> > but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> > skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> > The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> > every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> > reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> > follow this line of reasoning.
>
> We do reject some Roman compilations.

What would they be?

Do you believe in Ovid's
> Metamorphoses and that there was a historical Scylla?

No I don't .This is obviously a myth.Not backed up by any other
evidence. Not backed up by archaeological evidence.
No respectable historian believes this is history. You are not
comparing like with like.


http://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.htmlhttp://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.8.eighth.html

>
> > All historical sources are biased to
> > some degree, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the
> > bath water. Do skeptics believe Roman documents when they speak about
> > Romans?
>
> No; skeptics don't accept the Aenid or the story of Romulus and Remus
> as history.
>
> > Do you believe Jewish historians when they speak about Jewish
> > history?
>
> Skeptics don't accept the parting of the Red sea as an accurate part
> of Jewish history.
>
>
>
> > If so why not believe Christian historians we they record

[Maggsy]

On Oct 14, 11:08 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
> > about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> > because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> > Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> > believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> > superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> > prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> > written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> > but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> > skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> > The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> > every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> > reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> > follow this line of reasoning.
>
> We do reject some Roman compilations. Do you believe in Ovid's

> Metamorphoses and that there was a historical Scylla?http://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.htmlhttp://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.8.eighth.html

>
> > All historical sources are biased to
> > some degree, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the
> > bath water. Do skeptics believe Roman documents when they speak about
> > Romans?
>
> No; skeptics don't accept the Aenid or the story of Romulus and Remus
> as history.

What about Suetonius and Tacitus?

>
> > Do you believe Jewish historians when they speak about Jewish
> > history?
>
> Skeptics don't accept the parting of the Red sea as an accurate part
> of Jewish history.
>
>
>
> > If so why not believe Christian historians we they record

[Maggsy]

On Oct 14, 11:09 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > existed?
>

> Let me start by saying (perhaps a bit ahead of myself that) "refuse to
> believe" isn't what any of us are doing.  Since we really don't have
> any solid reliable evidence for Jesus' actual existence (and have only
> some books filled with innacuracies,

Please give examples?



implausibilities,



Please give examples?



and
> contradictions



Please give examples?

-- and a history of very similar stories of other holy
> men that came before);

Please give examples?

we simply do not accept the bible's word for it
> that Jesus existed.

Why not . Don't you accept that Socrates existed . Don't you just take
Plato's and aristotle's word for it?

 And that is a very much different thing than
> merely "refusing" to believe something.
>
> On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
> > about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> > because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> > Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> > believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> > superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> > prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> > written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> > but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> > skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> > The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> > every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> > reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> > follow this line of reasoning. All historical sources are biased to
> > some degree, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the
> > bath water. Do skeptics believe Roman documents when they speak about
> > Romans? Do you believe Jewish historians when they speak about Jewish
> > history? If so why not believe Christian historians we they record

[Maggsy]

On Oct 14, 11:18 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> Here is an article that I think partially explains it.
>

> http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Dont_Know_Much_Bout_Hi...

>
> 25% of teens surveyed in England did not believe that Winston
> Churchill was a real person :-)
>

Yes this does begger belief.

> On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
> > about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> > because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> > Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> > believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> > superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> > prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> > written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> > but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> > skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> > The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> > every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> > reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> > follow this line of reasoning. All historical sources are biased to
> > some degree, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the
> > bath water. Do skeptics believe Roman documents when they speak about
> > Romans? Do you believe Jewish historians when they speak about Jewish
> > history? If so why not believe Christian historians we they record

[Dag Yo]

> > No; skeptics don't accept the Aenid or the story of Romulus and Remus
> > as history.
>
> What about Suetonius and Tacitus?

When were they alive? Did they have more evidence than historians
today? And what qualifies them as skeptics?

On Oct 14, 4:14 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:08 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > > existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
> > > about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> > > because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> > > Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> > > believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> > > superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> > > prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> > > written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> > > but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> > > skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> > > The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> > > every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> > > reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> > > follow this line of reasoning.
>
> > We do reject some Roman compilations. Do you believe in Ovid's

> > Metamorphoses and that there was a historical Scylla?http://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.htmlhttp://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/m...

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Oct 14, 4:12 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:08 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > > existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
> > > about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> > > because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> > > Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> > > believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> > > superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> > > prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> > > written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> > > but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> > > skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> > > The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> > > every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> > > reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> > > follow this line of reasoning.
>
> > We do reject some Roman compilations.
>
> What would they be?

Ovid! Another is the story of Romulus and Remus.
http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Pr-Sa/Romulus-and-Remus.html

> > Do you believe in Ovid's
> > Metamorphoses and that there was a historical Scylla?
>
> No I don't .This is obviously a myth.Not backed up by any other
> evidence. Not backed up by archaeological evidence.
> No respectable historian believes this is history. You are not
> comparing like with like.
>

> http://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.htmlhttp://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/m...

[Maggsy]

On Oct 14, 11:34 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 12:03 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 10:59 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'll start with a simple question: What exactly do you mean when you
> > > say "historical Jesus"? What are the differences between the
> > > historical Jesus and the Biblical Jesus?
>
> > To me they are one and the same, but to others the historical Jesus
> > would be many different things. They would believe though  that he
> > existed about 2000 years ago on this planet according to the evidence.
>
> There is a lot of difference if you are talking about historical
> evidences.
> So far, there are no evidences at all to any miracles performed by
> anyone, and that includes the stories of the NT.
>

What are you trying to say. You don't believe he existed because of
the miracles in the New Testament?

> As for a man names Yeshua who happened to be a (relatively) liberal
> and famous religious leader more or less 2,000 years ago, I'm not sure
> what the current evidences are, but to be very frank, it doesn't
> interest me much. Even if such character really existed, it means
> nothing both to Theists and atheists

Why do you say this. It's up to you if it means some thing to them or
not. It's not up to you to decide.

[Maggsy]

On Oct 14, 11:56 pm, MEG <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Refuse to believe?  Kinda like I refuse to believe that the Green
> Hornet ever existed?  Superman? The Hulk?  Batman?

You are not comparing like with like. There is alot more evidence that
Jesus existed compared to cartoon characters.

 Amazing how closed
> minded some people can be, isn't it.

What is your evidence for this assertion.I don't consider myself a
closed mind person and I am undecided about a great many things in
life.

 [sic]
>
> On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
> > about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> > because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> > Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> > believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> > superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> > prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> > written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> > but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> > skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> > The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> > every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> > reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> > follow this line of reasoning. All historical sources are biased to
> > some degree, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the
> > bath water. Do skeptics believe Roman documents when they speak about
> > Romans? Do you believe Jewish historians when they speak about Jewish
> > history? If so why not believe Christian historians we they record

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 12:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > existed?
>
> Two reasons.
>

> 1.http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-histori...

> 2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --Carl Sagan.
>
> It boils down to the fact that most historical information does not require
> us to worship an imaginary sky fairy and believe in "miracles" which defy
> the laws of physics.
>

Many believe Jesus to be a historical person with out believing in
miracles. As for miracles defying the laws of physics that's your
definition not mine.

> Ingersoll.- Hide quoted text -

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 12:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > existed?
>
> Two reasons.
>

> 1.http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-histori...

> 2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --Carl Sagan.

It is not an extraordinary claim that Jesus existed. That he came back
to life after 3 days is an extraordinary claim. You are getting the
two mixed up. The discussion is about the former not the latter.

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 12:20 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > No; skeptics don't accept the Aenid or the story of Romulus and Remus
> > > as history.
>
> > What about Suetonius and Tacitus?
>
> When were they alive?  Did they have more evidence than historians
> today?  And what qualifies them as skeptics?
>

I think there may have been a misunderstanding here or may be I'm
reading it wrong, but I was asking if Suetonius and Tacitus Roman
historians are accepted by skeptics.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 15, 12:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > existed?
>
> Two reasons.
>

> 1.http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-histori...

> 2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --Carl Sagan.
>
> It boils down to the fact that most historical information does not require
> us to worship an imaginary sky fairy and believe in "miracles" which defy
> the laws of physics.
>

Many believe Jesus to be a historical person with out believing in
miracles. As for miracles defying the laws of physics that's your
definition not mine.

And many don't. The controversy essentially is between theist historians who have a stake in proving the existence of Jesus and will accept very low standards to prove his existence and other historians (atheist and theist) who apply objective standards to determine proof of his existence.

The point is that no-one is suggesting that we worship Socrates so his existence or lack of it doesn't really matter. What we're actually interested in is what he wrote.

You want us to worship Jesus as the divine body of your god (or however you properly describe it). The standards for this proof automatically become higher and his existence or lack of it then matters.

 

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 12:23 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 4:12 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 14, 11:08 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > > > existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
> > > > about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> > > > because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> > > > Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> > > > believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> > > > superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> > > > prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> > > > written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> > > > but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> > > > skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> > > > The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> > > > every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> > > > reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> > > > follow this line of reasoning.
>
> > > We do reject some Roman compilations.
>
> > What would they be?
>
> Ovid! Another is the story of Romulus and Remus.http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Pr-Sa/Romulus-and-Remus.html
>
>

I also reject these as I think most sensible people would.

>
> > > Do you believe in Ovid's
> > > Metamorphoses and that there was a historical Scylla?
>
> > No I don't .This is obviously a myth.Not backed up by any other
> > evidence. Not backed up by archaeological evidence.
> > No respectable historian believes this is history. You are not
> > comparing like with like.
>

> >http://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.htmlhttp://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/m...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 15, 12:20 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > No; skeptics don't accept the Aenid or the story of Romulus and Remus
> > > as history.
>
> > What about Suetonius and Tacitus?
>
> When were they alive?  Did they have more evidence than historians
> today?  And what qualifies them as skeptics?
>

I think there may have been a misunderstanding here or may be I'm
reading it wrong, but I was asking if Suetonius and Tacitus Roman
historians are accepted by skeptics.

They are accepted. However, the portions of their writings that refer to Christus and Christians are considered suspect.

If you read the link I provided you'll see that and you'll see why and you'll see the references which used which you can review.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Oct 14, 4:14 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:08 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > > existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
> > > about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> > > because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> > > Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> > > believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> > > superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> > > prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> > > written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> > > but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> > > skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> > > The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> > > every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> > > reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> > > follow this line of reasoning.
>
> > We do reject some Roman compilations. Do you believe in Ovid's

> > Metamorphoses and that there was a historical Scylla?http://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/metam.htmlhttp://classics.mit.edu/Ovid/m...

>
> > > All historical sources are biased to
> > > some degree, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the
> > > bath water. Do skeptics believe Roman documents when they speak about
> > > Romans?
>
> > No; skeptics don't accept the Aenid or the story of Romulus and Remus
> > as history.
>
> What about Suetonius and Tacitus?

Good question.

Suetonius refers to disturbances in Rome in the reign of Claudius
caused by the followers of someone named Chrestus! He doesn't say
Christus (Christ) or confirm that it was a man named Jesus that these
Jews were following. Tacitus too might have written Chrestianos.
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=114548

It is claimed that since Chrestos is not Chrestus, Suetonius and
Tacitus might have been writing about some Jew other than Jesus.
Marcion, however, called Jesus Chrestos (meaning The Good) while he
was compiling the first Bible. Marcion was obviously referring to the
Jesus of Luke whom he believed in. If one person did call Jesus
Chrestos, why couldn't others too have called him Chrestos; i.e., why
couldn't Suetonius and Tacitus too have been writing about Jesus?

[random]

On Oct 15, 1:24 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:34 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 12:03 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 14, 10:59 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'll start with a simple question: What exactly do you mean when you
> > > > say "historical Jesus"? What are the differences between the
> > > > historical Jesus and the Biblical Jesus?
>
> > > To me they are one and the same, but to others the historical Jesus
> > > would be many different things. They would believe though  that he
> > > existed about 2000 years ago on this planet according to the evidence.
>
> > There is a lot of difference if you are talking about historical
> > evidences.
> > So far, there are no evidences at all to any miracles performed by
> > anyone, and that includes the stories of the NT.
>
> What are you trying to say. You don't believe he existed because of
> the miracles in the New Testament?
>

I'll clarify:
I don't believe in the biblical Jesus since there are no evidences for
any special claim like miracles or divinity.
As for the question if there was a regular rabbi 2,000 years ago, that
was used as a base for the myth, I honestly don't care.

> > As for a man names Yeshua who happened to be a (relatively) liberal
> > and famous religious leader more or less 2,000 years ago, I'm not sure
> > what the current evidences are, but to be very frank, it doesn't
> > interest me much. Even if such character really existed, it means
> > nothing both to Theists and atheists
>
> Why do you say this. It's up to you if it means some thing to them or
> not. It's not up to you to decide.
>

Can you explain what religious significance can come from discovering
that there was a religious leader without any supernatural abilities
2,000 years ago?

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 15, 12:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > existed?
>
> Two reasons.
>

> 1.http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-histori...

> 2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --Carl Sagan.

It is not an extraordinary claim that Jesus existed.

True. But there really isn't any evidence to support that he existed.

The Roman records for that period don't exist. The Bible offers two different places of birth and there don't seem to be records for Mary or Joseph either.

In addition I believe there's some controversy over whether Nazareth even existed at the time of his birth.

 

That he came back
to life after 3 days is an extraordinary claim.

Yes and this goes to his divinity. In addition there are two versions of the story (in Matthew I believe). The first version ends at his death and the second version includes the resurrection. This was added much later.

 

You are getting the
two mixed up. The discussion is about the former not the latter.

No actually I'm not. I'm quite clear on the separate issues. You were asked to clarify which you were referring to by Random and didn't answer his question.

Since most Christians believe that the divinity of Jesus is important I took that approach.

Perhaps you should ensure that you are clear.

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 12:36 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 12:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > > > existed?
>
> > > Two reasons.
>
> > > 1.http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-histori.
> > ..
> > > 2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --Carl Sagan.
>
> > > It boils down to the fact that most historical information does not
> > require
> > > us to worship an imaginary sky fairy and believe in "miracles" which defy
> > > the laws of physics.
>
> > Many believe Jesus to be a historical person with out believing in
> > miracles. As for miracles defying the laws of physics that's your
> > definition not mine.
>
> And many don't. The controversy essentially is between theist historians who
> have a stake in proving the existence of Jesus and will accept very low
> standards to prove his existence and other historians (atheist and theist)
> who apply objective standards to determine proof of his existence.
>
> The point is that no-one is suggesting that we worship Socrates so his
> existence or lack of it doesn't really matter.

This has nothing to do with it. The evidence of whether a person
existed or not has nothing to do with worshiping him.

What we're actually
> interested in is what he wrote.
>

Socrates didn't write anything or at least nothing that has survived.
I think you are getting him confused with Plato and Aristotle.

> You want us to worship Jesus as the divine body of your god (or however you
> properly describe it). The standards for this proof automatically become
> higher

Why do they become higher? It's up to you if you want to worship him
or not I'm just discussing if he existed or not.

and his existence or lack of it then matters.
>
> --
> Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
>
> "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our
> peril, risk and hazard."  ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
>
> "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert

[Trance Gemini]

It has everything to do with it. As Random said, Why would we care if he existed or not except for the fact that Christians claim he's divine, the son of your god and you worship him.

 

 What we're actually
> interested in is what he wrote.
>

Socrates didn't write anything or at least nothing that has survived.
I think you are getting him confused with Plato and Aristotle.

 

Well I think you're being a little insulting here by assuming that we're all "confused". Perhaps you should ask what I meant because perhaps I just wasn't specific and assuming that you would know what I was talking about.

Plato and Aristotle refer to him. That's how we know he "existed". They refer to his writings which were interesting.

No-one actually cares if he was a real person.

 

> You want us to worship Jesus as the divine body of your god (or however you
> properly describe it). The standards for this proof automatically become
> higher

Why do they become higher? It's up to you if you want to worship him
or not I'm just discussing if he existed or not.

Feel free to worship any magical sky fairy you wish. Just don't try to impose that belief on me.

If you wish to convince me that you're right then you'll have to provide me with proof that he existed, proof that he was divine, proof that your bible is the inerrant word of your god and proof that your god exists.

 

 and his existence or lack of it then matters.
>
> --
> Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
>
> "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our
> peril, risk and hazard."  ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
>
> "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert

> Ingersoll.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Maggsy]

> 2,000 years ago?-




Because he was just a great moral teacher to many people.. I'm sure
belief in Jesus has great significance to many people even if they
reject the miracles.

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 12:43 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 12:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > > > existed?
>
> > > Two reasons.
>
> > > 1.http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-histori.
> > ..
> > > 2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --Carl Sagan.
>
> > It is not an extraordinary claim that Jesus existed.
>
> True. But there really isn't any evidence to support that he existed.

True if you reject the Gospels and Josephus, but you haven't given any
good reasons to reject this evidence.

>
> The Roman records for that period don't exist. The Bible offers two
> different places of birth

Only one Bethlehem please give verses if you know different.

and there don't seem to be records for Mary or
> Joseph either.

Records. What records are you referring too?

>
> In addition I believe there's some controversy over whether Nazareth even
> existed at the time of his birth.
>

Again please give evidence for this assertion(Not a skeptics website.A
respected archaeologist) the last time I spoke to an archaeologist
about this. They didn't know about any controversy.

> > That he came back
> > to life after 3 days is an extraordinary claim.
>
> Yes and this goes to his divinity. In addition there are two versions of the
> story (in Matthew I believe).

Please give evidence for this?

The first version ends at his death and the
> second version includes the resurrection. This was added much later.
>

Again your source for this.

> > You are getting the
> > two mixed up. The discussion is about the former not the latter.
>
> No actually I'm not. I'm quite clear on the separate issues. You were asked
> to clarify which you were referring to by Random and didn't answer his
> question.
>
> Since most Christians believe that the divinity of Jesus is important I took
> that approach.
>
> Perhaps you should ensure that you are clear.
>
>
>

I will try to be as clear as possible. I can only try my best.

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[random]

Maybe, but if it is the teaching they want, without caring about his
divine authority, then it even doesn't matter if Jesus was real or
not.
You can also learn morals and ideals from stories you know for sure
that they are fables. And if the morals are the important things, does
it really matter if they were exactly from that teacher in the story
or from a different era?

The only ones that should care, are the ones that require the story to
be true in order to follow the moral code, meaning, the ones that
follow the laws from authority. And for them, I doubt if a regular man
2,000 years ago is an authority figure...

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 12:52 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

So you only care if some existed or not if some one is asking you to
worship them. you don't care if Socrates existed or if Alexander the
great existed? You don't care if they were just made up? You don't
care about historical truth?

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 12:52 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

No I didn't say you were all confused .I said you seemed to be
confused on this point.

Perhaps you should ask what I meant because perhaps I just
> wasn't specific and assuming that you would know what I was talking about.
>
> Plato and Aristotle refer to him.

Why should we trust Plato and Aristotle and not the gospels?May be
they just made him up like the Apostles are often accused of.

That's how we know he "existed". They
> refer to his writings which were interesting.
>
> No-one actually cares if he was a real person.
>
>

I don't think it's your place to decide that. You can't speak for
other people. Many historians and people care very much about if he
existed or not. Many care about historical truth.

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 12:52 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am not trying to impose any belief on you. You are free to believe
any thing you want. I can't make you believe anything you don't want
to believe.

>
> If you wish to convince me that you're right then you'll have to provide me
> with proof that he existed,

This is the subject at hand not those below.If you reject Josephus and
the gospels then there is nothing I can do for you.

proof that he was divine, proof that your bible
> is the inerrant word of your god and proof that your god exists.
>
>
>
>
>
> >  and his existence or lack of it then matters.
>
> > > --
> > > Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
>
> > > "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our
> > > peril, risk and hazard."  ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
>
> > > "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> > > ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> > > and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?"
> > --Robert
> > > Ingersoll.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
>
> "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our
> peril, risk and hazard."  ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
>
> "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert
> Ingersoll.- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 15, 12:52 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

 <snipped>

 

Well I think you're being a little insulting here by assuming that we're all
> "confused".

No I didn't say you were all confused .I said you seemed to be
confused on this point.

I was referring to your comments to the others as well as myself. You assume that we are confused when you don't understand something. 

Perhaps you should ask what I meant because perhaps I just
> wasn't specific and assuming that you would know what I was talking about.
>
> Plato and Aristotle refer to him.

Why should we trust Plato and Aristotle and not the gospels?May be
they just made him up like the Apostles are often accused of.

Because it doesn't matter whether he existed. It matters what he said. Maybe they did make him up. Either way he was an interesting character and had some interesting things to say about the world. I doubt you'll find anyone who absolutely declares that he was real and that it matters to them.

 

 That's how we know he "existed". They
> refer to his writings which were interesting.
>
> No-one actually cares if he was a real person.
>
>

I don't think it's your place to decide that. You can't speak for
other people. Many historians and people care very much about if he
existed or not. Many care about historical truth.

Who? What historians and people? Please be specific.

What historical "truth" will be served by knowing whether he was a real person or not.

Of course the more knowledge we have the better, but it makes not one iota of difference if he was a real person or not.

<snipped>

[Maggsy]

It's about truth at the end of the day. You are suggesting that some
one just made Jesus up and attributed all these parables to him.Morals
based on a lie don't work. It's a fundamental contradiction.i think it
would mean alot to alot of people if the morals were based on a lie.

> The only ones that should care, are the ones that require the story to
> be true in order to follow the moral code, meaning, the ones that
> follow the laws from authority. And for them, I doubt if a regular man

> 2,000 years ago is an authority figure...- Hide quoted text -



He is an authority figure to many.Many Christian's don't believe in
the miracles. they spiritualize the resurrection, but Jesus is still
an authority figure to them

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snipped>

 

> Feel free to worship any magical sky fairy you wish. Just don't try to
> impose that belief on me.

I am not trying to impose any belief on you. You are free to believe
any thing you want. I can't make you believe anything you don't want
to believe.

Well that's nice to know. However, you joined this debating group for a reason.

Since it's called Atheism vs Christianity presumably you're at least here to defend your faith?

 

>
> If you wish to convince me that you're right then you'll have to provide me
> with proof that he existed,

This is the subject at hand not those below.If you reject Josephus and
the gospels then there is nothing I can do for you.

 

The historians reject Josephus. Those portions of Josephus are suspect and considered forgeries.

 

One cannot use the Gospels to prove the historicity of the Gospels. You need independent proof and unfortunately the only independent proof has been shown for many reasons to be suspect.

 

<snipped>

[deej]

You're totally straw manning here Trance. Maggsy is merely trying to
figure out why you and other atheists don't accept that Jesus existed,
despite the fact you do accept the existence of other historical
figures, even though the historical evidence for their existence may
be less credible than that of Jesus Christ. No-one is trying to
'impose' anything on you.

Maggsy, I completely understand your frustrations. Those who dismiss
the gospels simply because of their theological agendas are forgetting
the bias inherent in all historical evidence. It is fallacious to
argue that the author's bias invalidates their evidence. If you
promote this argument, then you cannot accept truth in any version of
written history.

On Oct 15, 10:52 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snipped>

 

So you only care if some existed or not if some one is asking you to

worship them. you don't care if Socrates existed or if Alexander the
great existed? You don't care if they were just made up? You don't
care about historical truth?

It's good to have as much information as possible. However, the fact is that we don't know everything. 

We have indications that Alexander the Great was a real person, but what if he wasn't? We still know that there was a King who did at least some of the things credited to Alexander the Great because there is some archaeological evidence to support the claims. 

We don't know if King Arthur existed and since we don't have archaeological evidence to support that claim we assume until archaeological evidence proves otherwise that King Arthur is a myth. We do this despite the fact that the story refers to real places and provides some insight into the social lives and culture of the people at the time.

<snipped>

[deej]

Again, you have forgotten the bias inherent in all manner of
historical evidence. Archaeological evidence is not completely
objective. In fact, it is fundamentally biased in terms of the nature
of its preservation - what is preserved, in what state it is
preserved, and why it is preserved, as well as what is actually found.
The historian has to analyze this evidence while being conscious of
this intrinsic bias.

Again, if you argue that bias invalidates history, then you must
reject truth in history altogether.

On Oct 15, 11:36 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 15, 12:43 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 12:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > > > existed?
>
> > > Two reasons.
>
> > > 1.http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-histori.
> > ..
> > > 2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --Carl Sagan.
>
> > It is not an extraordinary claim that Jesus existed.
>
> True. But there really isn't any evidence to support that he existed.

True if you reject the Gospels and Josephus, but you haven't given any
good reasons to reject this evidence.

The Gospels cannot be used to prove their own historicity.

The references in Josephus are considered to be suspect.

 

>
> The Roman records for that period don't exist. The Bible offers two
> different places of birth

Only one Bethlehem please give verses if you know different.

I believe that Mark refers to one and Luke the other but I don't recall the specific passages.

Both Bethlehem and Nazareth are referred to as birth places for Jesus.

I'll have to find them for you later or someone else might jump in with the references.

 

and there don't seem to be records for Mary or
> Joseph either.

Records. What records are you referring too?

The Romans kept very detailed records of births, deaths, trials, etc.

There should have been records of their births deaths and Jesus trial. There are none.

 

>
> In addition I believe there's some controversy over whether Nazareth even
> existed at the time of his birth.
>

Again please give evidence for this assertion(Not a skeptics website.A
respected archaeologist) the last time I spoke to an archaeologist
about this. They didn't know about any controversy.

Any references I provide are my choice. Feel free to dispute them if you wish, but I usually provide references to articles which contain what I believe are valid references.

 

Quote.

Earliest history & archaeological evidence

Archaeological research has revealed a funerary and cult center at Kfar HaHoresh, about two miles (3 km) from Nazareth, dating back roughly 9000 years (to what is known as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B era).^[7] The remains of some 65 individuals were found, buried under huge horizontal headstone structures, some of which consisted of up to 3 tons of locally-produced white plaster. Decorated human skulls uncovered there have led archaeologists to believe that Kfar HaHoresh was a major cult centre in that remote era.^[8]

Chad Emmet authored a sociological study on modern Nazareth entitled "Beyond the Basilica: Christians and Muslims in Nazareth." This book attempts to "better understand how Christians and Muslims have managed to live together for centuries in relative peace in a region known for its ethnic and religious conflicts, and to determine to what degree they have remained segregated in religious-based quarters."^[9] Emmett claims that archaeological excavations in the vicinity of the present-day Basilica of the Annunciation and St. Joseph have revealed pottery dating from theMiddle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC).^[9] However, excavations conducted prior to 1931 in the Franciscan venerated area revealed "no trace of a Greek or Roman settlement" there,^[10] and according to studies written between 1955 and 1990, no archaeological evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times have been found.^[11][12] Bagatti, the principal archaeologist at the venerated sites in Nazareth, unearthed quantities of later Roman and Byzantine artifacts,^[13] attesting to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward.

End Quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Earliest_history_.26_archaeological_evidence

> > That he came back
> > to life after 3 days is an extraordinary claim.
>
> Yes and this goes to his divinity. In addition there are two versions of the
> story (in Matthew I believe).

Please give evidence for this?

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/resurrection.html 

This article includes references.

The first version ends at his death and the
> second version includes the resurrection. This was added much later.
>

Again your source for this.

 

See above

 

> > You are getting the
> > two mixed up. The discussion is about the former not the latter.
>
> No actually I'm not. I'm quite clear on the separate issues. You were asked
> to clarify which you were referring to by Random and didn't answer his
> question.
>
> Since most Christians believe that the divinity of Jesus is important I took
> that approach.
>
> Perhaps you should ensure that you are clear.
>
>
>

I will try to be as clear as possible. I can only try my best.

 

Thank you.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:34 PM, deej <buddweise...@hotmail.com> wrote:

You're totally straw manning here Trance.

Where's the straw man? Or did you just jump in to disrupt the conversation flow?

 

Maggsy is merely trying to
figure out why you and other atheists don't accept that Jesus existed,

Thanks. I'm well aware what Maggsy is asking and trying to determine.

Are you so dense that you can't see that I'm responding directly to every request Maggsy has made?

 

despite the fact you do accept the existence of other historical
figures, even though the historical evidence for their existence may
be less credible than that of Jesus Christ. No-one is trying to
'impose' anything on you.

Maggsy, I completely understand your frustrations.

Frankly Maggsy appears to be holding his own quite well and far better than you have with your false assertions about straw mans and inability to read a thread.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:43 PM, deej <buddweise...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Again, you have forgotten the bias

I'm well aware of the fact that there are many theists who believe that anything that refutes their claims is "biased" and anything that they are able to make fit their claims (no matter how suspect) is true.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Oct 14, 4:52 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > This has nothing to do with it. The evidence of whether a person
> > existed or not has nothing to do with worshiping him.
>
> It has everything to do with it. As Random said, Why would we care if he
> existed or not except for the fact that Christians claim he's divine, the
> son of your god and you worship him.

... because one is interested in one or more of his teachings? Would
non-theist Buddhists not care whether Gautama Siddharata existed
except for the fact that theist Buddhists treat him as divine?

[Trance Gemini]

I don't see why Ranjit. If one is a non-theist what matters is what was said. The philosophy.

I like the Carvakan philosophy. I don't know who originated it or what the source is. It would be interesting to know that but it's not critical to know that because I don't worship the originator.

It only matters when you have to idolize someone as part of the belief.

 

[jake]

Wikopedia:

The historical Jesus:
Is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical
methods. These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel
texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus, along with non-
biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-
century Judea. These methods do not include theological or religious
axioms, such as biblical infallibility. Though the reconstructions
vary, they generally agree on these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish
teacher[1] who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a
period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in the Iudaea Province
during the governorship of Pontius Pilate. The quest for the
historical Jesus began with the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus.[2]


Biblical Jesus:
The four canonical gospels of the New Testament are the main sources
of information for the doctrinal Christian narrative of Jesus' life.
There is not a single New Testament "view" of Jesus' life, the four
gospels tell different but dependent stories. There is wide consensus
among contemporary critical scholars that Mark is the earliest written
gospel, dating to around 70, that the authors of Matthew and Luke had
copies of Mark when they wrote, and adapted Mark for their purposes,
and that John, written last, had knowledge of the other three. It has
been the work of Christian apologists since Tatian to blend the four
books into a coherent account, Tatian's work was the Diatessaron, a
"harmony," or synthesis, of the four New Testament Gospels into a
combined narrative of the life of Jesus. Ephrem the Syrian referred to
it as the Evangelion da Mehallete ("The Gospel of the Mixed"). This
article comes from that synthetic tradition.

In all four gospels, Jesus conducted a miraculous ministry, leads a
circle of disciples, draws the ire of religious authorities, is
crucified, and rises from the dead. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the
Synoptic gospels, portray Jesus as the Son of God, a healer and
exorcist who told parables about the Kingdom of God and coming
Judgment. Jesus' identity as the Messiah is kept secret, except to
chosen disciples. For example, the current generation was denied any
sign in Mark, or given only the Sign of Jonah in Matthew and Luke.
John portrays Jesus as the physical incarnation of the Logos, or
Divine Word. John's Jesus tells no parables, demonstrates his divine
identity with seven signs, and speaks at length about himself. John
makes no direct reference to the synoptic concept of a coming
judgment.

[Drafterman]

On Oct 14, 5:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even

> existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical

> about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> follow this line of reasoning. All historical sources are biased to
> some degree, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the
> bath water. Do skeptics believe Roman documents when they speak about
> Romans? Do you believe Jewish historians when they speak about Jewish
> history? If so why not believe Christian historians we they record
> Church history.

No one is telling you to live your life by Alexander's example, or
you'll go to hell.
I generally take historical documents with a grain of salt since a lot
of benefit of doubt is given to them.

But the magnitude of that benefit is inversely proportional to the
importance that document has if definitively proven true or false. The
greater the importance, the less benefit of the doubt.

So, if you concede that there is no importance to the Bible, and the
salvation of any soul I may or may not have does not depend on me
believing the Bible, then I'll give it the same due credit I give
similar historical accounts of supernatural and miraculous happenings:

Probably based on some fact and factual characters, but also a
combination of multiple stories and individuals with some pure fiction
thrown in. Like Robin Hood, Alexander the Great, Gilgamesh, King
Arthur, etc., etc.

But so long as you purport the Bible to be some divine code by which I
need to construct my life then provide some proof for your assessment.

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 1:28 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>
>
> > > Feel free to worship any magical sky fairy you wish. Just don't try to
> > > impose that belief on me.
>
> > I am not trying to impose any belief on you. You are free to believe
> > any thing you want. I can't make you believe anything you don't want
> > to believe.
>
> Well that's nice to know. However, you joined this debating group for a
> reason.
>
> Since it's called Atheism vs Christianity presumably you're at least here to
> defend your faith?
>

I am hear to give a reason for my faith and to learn. I enjoy talking
to others that see things different to me. I find it always
strengthens my faith.

>
>
> > > If you wish to convince me that you're right then you'll have to provide
> > me
> > > with proof that he existed,
>
> > This is the subject at hand not those below.If you reject Josephus and
> > the gospels then there is nothing I can do for you.
>
> The historians reject Josephus.

Define which historians you are speaking about. Yes one of the
portions of Josephus is suspect. The other isn't.

Those portions of Josephus are suspect and
> considered forgeries.
>
> One cannot use the Gospels to prove the historicity of the Gospels. You need
> independent proof and unfortunately the only independent proof has been
> shown for many reasons to be suspect.
>

So do you reject roman historians when they speak about Roman history?
Do you require independent proof from other sources. Do you reject
Josephus when he's speak about Jewish history. Do you only accept it
if backed up by independent evidence.Or does this skepticism only
apply to the New Testament.

[deej]

Trance Gemini,

> I'm well aware of the fact that there are many theists who believe that
> anything that refutes their claims is "biased" and anything that they are
> able to make fit their claims (no matter how suspect) is true.

What the??! Is this meant to be an intelligent response to my post?

Your comment is just one example of why I don't enjoy debating with
atheists on this forum... their arguments frequently degenerate into
mere ad hominem... i'm sorry to those few atheists who I may have
misrepresented here... but there are certainly only a few of you.

Do you agree or not, Trance, with the idea that bias does NOT
invalidate historical evidence. If you do agree, then it is quite
obviously ridiculous to isolate the bias in the gospels and claim that
it negates their testimony.

Are there any other reasons you have for not regarding the gospels as
reliable historical evidence?

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 1:34 am, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You're totally straw manning here Trance. Maggsy is merely trying to
> figure out why you and other atheists don't accept that Jesus existed,
> despite the fact you do accept the existence of other historical
> figures, even though the historical evidence for their existence may
> be less credible than that of Jesus Christ. No-one is trying to
> 'impose' anything on you.
>
> Maggsy, I completely understand your frustrations. Those who dismiss
> the gospels simply because of their theological agendas are forgetting
> the bias inherent in all historical evidence. It is fallacious to
> argue that the author's bias invalidates their evidence.

Precisely this is my position. They reject it because it's in the New
Testament which can't be evidence because the New testament is a book
of myths. This is a circular argument because they have never proven
it is a book of myths.
They just assume it is because it has miracles in and that doesn't fit
in with their world view so must be discarded.

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 1:36 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > So you only care if some existed or not if some one is asking you to
> > worship them. you don't care if Socrates existed or if Alexander the
> > great existed? You don't care if they were just made up? You don't
> > care about historical truth?
>
> It's good to have as much information as possible. However, the fact is that
> we don't know everything.
>
> We have indications that Alexander the Great was a real person, but what if
> he wasn't? We still know that there was a King who did at least some of the
> things credited to Alexander the Great because there is some archaeological
> evidence to support the claims.

There is also archaeological evidence that support the claims of the
New Testament. Also there is archaeological evidence that parts of
Homer's odyssey is true.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 15, 1:28 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > > Feel free to worship any magical sky fairy you wish. Just don't try to
> > > impose that belief on me.
>
> > I am not trying to impose any belief on you. You are free to believe
> > any thing you want. I can't make you believe anything you don't want
> > to believe.
>
> Well that's nice to know. However, you joined this debating group for a
> reason.
>
> Since it's called Atheism vs Christianity presumably you're at least here to
> defend your faith?
>

 

I am hear to give a reason for my faith and to learn. I enjoy talking
to others that see things different to me. I find it always
strengthens my faith.

>
>
> > > If you wish to convince me that you're right then you'll have to provide
> > me
> > > with proof that he existed,
>
> > This is the subject at hand not those below.If you reject Josephus and
> > the gospels then there is nothing I can do for you.
>
> The historians reject Josephus.

Define which historians you are speaking about. Yes one of the
portions of Josephus is suspect. The other isn't.

 

All the references for Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc. are in the link I gave you which is an article that discusses this specific issue. 

That article contains references which you can use to locate the historians which are responsible for coming to those conclusions.

There are both theist and atheist historians who agree on this.

 

I suggest you read the article. It's the very first link which I provided to you.

 Those portions of Josephus are suspect and
> considered forgeries.
>
> One cannot use the Gospels to prove the historicity of the Gospels. You need
> independent proof and unfortunately the only independent proof has been
> shown for many reasons to be suspect.
>

So do you reject roman historians when they speak about Roman history?
Do you require independent proof from other sources. Do you reject
Josephus when he's speak about Jewish history. Do you only accept it
if backed up by independent evidence.Or does this skepticism only
apply to the New Testament.

As I said, while those historians are credible the specific references in many cases are considered forgeries or suspect.

This is discussed in the article and details are provided.

<snipped>

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 1:34 am, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You're totally straw manning here Trance. Maggsy is merely trying to
> figure out why you and other atheists don't accept that Jesus existed,
> despite the fact you do accept the existence of other historical
> figures, even though the historical evidence for their existence may
> be less credible than that of Jesus Christ. No-one is trying to
> 'impose' anything on you.
>
> Maggsy, I completely understand your frustrations. Those who dismiss
> the gospels simply because of their theological agendas are forgetting
> the bias inherent in all historical evidence. It is fallacious to
> argue that the author's bias invalidates their evidence. If you
> promote this argument, then you cannot accept truth in any version of
> written history.
>

Deej, I'm glad some one understands my point. I was beginning to think
I was talking a foreign language. I trying to keep it simple so they
might understand, but it does get frustrating at times when they keep
coming out with same illogical arguments. And they say we are brain
washed.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:22 PM, deej <buddweise...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Trance Gemini,

> I'm well aware of the fact that there are many theists who believe that
> anything that refutes their claims is "biased" and anything that they are
> able to make fit their claims (no matter how suspect) is true.

What the??! Is this meant to be an intelligent response to my post?

Your comment is just one example of why I don't enjoy debating with
atheists on this forum... their arguments frequently degenerate into
mere ad hominem... i'm sorry to those few atheists who I may have
misrepresented here... but there are certainly only a few of you.

Well starting out a conversation with me claiming that I'm creating a straw man isn't exactly going to endear you to me.

Particularly since it isn't true.

You might want to give your own approach some thought.

 

Do you agree or not, Trance,  with the idea that bias does NOT
invalidate historical evidence. If you do agree, then it is quite
obviously ridiculous to isolate the bias in the gospels and claim that
it negates their testimony.

Are there any other reasons you have for not regarding the gospels as
reliable historical evidence?

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 15, 1:34 am, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You're totally straw manning here Trance. Maggsy is merely trying to
> figure out why you and other atheists don't accept that Jesus existed,
> despite the fact you do accept the existence of other historical
> figures, even though the historical evidence for their existence may
> be less credible than that of Jesus Christ. No-one is trying to
> 'impose' anything on you.
>
> Maggsy, I completely understand your frustrations. Those who dismiss
> the gospels simply because of their theological agendas are forgetting
> the bias inherent in all historical evidence. It is fallacious to
> argue that the author's bias invalidates their evidence.

Precisely this is my position. They reject it because it's in the New
Testament which can't be evidence because the New testament is a book
of myths. This is a circular argument because they have never proven
it is a book of myths.

Except for the fact that we're not discarding it because it's a book of myths.

We're discarding it because there is no independent evidence available which supports it's contents.

In the same way and for the same reason that we discard King Arthur as a myth. 

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 15, 1:36 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > So you only care if some existed or not if some one is asking you to
> > worship them. you don't care if Socrates existed or if Alexander the
> > great existed? You don't care if they were just made up? You don't
> > care about historical truth?
>
> It's good to have as much information as possible. However, the fact is that
> we don't know everything.
>
> We have indications that Alexander the Great was a real person, but what if
> he wasn't? We still know that there was a King who did at least some of the
> things credited to Alexander the Great because there is some archaeological
> evidence to support the claims.

There is also archaeological evidence that support the claims of the
New Testament.

Please feel free to provide this evidence.

 

Also there is archaeological evidence that parts of
Homer's odyssey is true.

>
> We don't know if King Arthur existed and since we don't have archaeological
> evidence to support that claim we assume until archaeological evidence
> proves otherwise that King Arthur is a myth. We do this despite the fact
> that the story refers to real places and provides some insight into the
> social lives and culture of the people at the time.
>
> <snipped>
>
> --
> Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
>
> "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our
> peril, risk and hazard."  ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
>
> "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert
> Ingersoll.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 15, 1:34 am, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You're totally straw manning here Trance. Maggsy is merely trying to
> figure out why you and other atheists don't accept that Jesus existed,
> despite the fact you do accept the existence of other historical
> figures, even though the historical evidence for their existence may
> be less credible than that of Jesus Christ. No-one is trying to
> 'impose' anything on you.
>
> Maggsy, I completely understand your frustrations. Those who dismiss
> the gospels simply because of their theological agendas are forgetting
> the bias inherent in all historical evidence. It is fallacious to
> argue that the author's bias invalidates their evidence. If you
> promote this argument, then you cannot accept truth in any version of
> written history.
>

Deej, I'm glad some one understands my point. I was beginning to think
I was talking a foreign language. I trying to keep it simple so they
might understand, but it does get frustrating at times when they keep
coming out with same illogical arguments. And they say we are brain
washed.

Well that's possibly because you are brain washed. 

I know that it's difficult to exercise sound logic and reason when your entire belief system is based on believing in a magical sky fairy that watches everything you do to make sure you're good.

And that a walking talking snake convinced a lady that it might be a good idea to get some knowledge in a magical garden and then your magical sky fairy punished everyone for getting some knowledge.

Considering that you believe in that type of belief system I understand your difficulty but I have hope for you.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Oct 14, 7:02 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 6:49 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 4:52 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Why would we care if he
> > > existed or not except for the fact that Christians claim he's divine, the
> > > son of your god and you worship him.
>
> > ... because one is interested in one or more of his teachings? Would
> > non-theist Buddhists not care whether Gautama Siddharata existed
> > except for the fact that theist Buddhists treat him as divine?
>
> I don't see why Ranjit. If one is a non-theist what matters is what was
> said. The philosophy.

People who don't worship Jesus are not necessarily non-theist.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't worship Jesus but they're hardly non-theist.

> It only matters when you have to idolize someone as part of the belief.

Not believing someone is divine and not having to idolize someone
doesn't prevent his being idolized. Girls idolize their dads. Non-
theist Jains idolize Mahavira. If someone is one's hero, one wants to
know something about him.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Oct 14, 8:30 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is also archaeological evidence that support the claims of the
> New Testament.

Interesting. Which of the claims?

> Also there is archaeological evidence that parts of
> Homer's odyssey is true.

Illiad, not Odyssey, AFAIK.

[random]

I'm suggesting that the Biblical Jesus is a myth, that could be based
on a real character.
It will not work only if the important part is the story and not the
moral it passes.

For example, let's say I'm looking at the morals presented in the OT,
and I find some of them as a good thing. Why should it matter if I
find out it was copied from Hammurabi?
On the other hand, if I'm taught to listen to all the laws because of
the stories, out of authority, then yes, I will depend on the story to
be truth. But then it will be obedience and not morality.

Anyway, since you depend on EVERYTHING to be true, I don't understand
how the existence of Jesus without proofs of his divinity will help
you.

> > The only ones that should care, are the ones that require the story to
> > be true in order to follow the moral code, meaning, the ones that
> > follow the laws from authority. And for them, I doubt if a regular man
> > 2,000 years ago is an authority figure...- Hide quoted text -
>
> He is an authority figure to many.Many Christian's don't believe in
> the miracles. they spiritualize the resurrection, but Jesus is still
> an authority figure to them
>

If they believe he was entirely human, without any connection to God,
then they take him as a role model, not as an authority figure.
And a role model doesn't have to be real, a myth to inspire people can
be enough.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Oct 14, 8:27 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 1:34 am, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You're totally straw manning here Trance. Maggsy is merely trying to
> > figure out why you and other atheists don't accept that Jesus existed,
> > despite the fact you do accept the existence of other historical
> > figures, even though the historical evidence for their existence may
> > be less credible than that of Jesus Christ. No-one is trying to
> > 'impose' anything on you.
>
> > Maggsy, I completely understand your frustrations. Those who dismiss
> > the gospels simply because of their theological agendas are forgetting
> > the bias inherent in all historical evidence. It is fallacious to
> > argue that the author's bias invalidates their evidence.
>
> Precisely this is my position.

By that recknoning, shouldn't these gospels too be considered sources
of historical information about Jesus?
http://i-cias.com/e.o/apocryphal_gospels.htm

> They reject it because it's in the New
> Testament which can't be evidence because the New testament is a book
> of myths. This is a circular argument because they have never proven
> it is a book of myths.

Christians reject apocryphal gospels because they're not in the New
Testament and claim that they can't be evidence because they are
apocryphal. This is a circular argument because they have never proven
them to be apocryphal:->

> They just assume it is because it has miracles in and that doesn't fit
> in with their world view so must be discarded.

They just assume they are myths because Jesus kisses Mary Magdalene on
the ___ or because the child Jesus miraculously struck someone dead or
because Jesus and Mary Magdalene were an item, none of which fit in
with their world view and therefore must be discarded.

[random]

That's indeed the common use I know, but apparently, Maggsy was
talking about something else since she mentioned the term "historical
Jesus" along with prophecies and miracles.

[Dag Yo]

> Please give examples?
> > implausibilities,
Miracles.

> > and contradictions
Was the guy hung from a tree or nailed to a cross?

> > -- and a history of very similar stories of other holy
> > men that came before);
Check out Trance Gemini's brilliant posts in this thread. I know i've
enjoyed them.

> > we simply do not accept the bible's word for it
> > that Jesus existed.
> Why not . Don't you accept that Socrates existed . Don't you just take
> Plato's and aristotle's word for it?
I do accept that Socrates probably existed but I don't just take their
word for it just like I don't take the bible's word for it that jesus
existed. The reason that I accept that Socrates probably existed is
because Plato's claims about Socrates are (as far as I know)
consistent with things that Plato could plausibly have known.

Like the claim that Socrates ran around spouting some philosophy,
hanging out with Plato and eventually getting himself killed for
annoying the wrong people sounds like something that could happen.
And other mentions of Socrates and Plato's work all seem to be in
general agreement with this set of facts. Were I to learn a bit more
about Socrates and Plato such that I would be suspicious that the guy
existed, then I might cease accepting that Socrates ever did exist and
I certainly wouldn't be troubled at all by accepting that Socrates was
merely a literary figure if there is more reason to suspect that he is
one.

>
> And that is a very much different thing than
>
> > merely "refusing" to believe something.
>

On Oct 14, 4:18 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 14, 11:09 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > > existed?
>

> > Let me start by saying (perhaps a bit ahead of myself that) "refuse to
> > believe" isn't what any of us are doing. Since we really don't have
> > any solid reliable evidence for Jesus' actual existence (and have only
> > some books filled with innacuracies,
>
> Please give examples?
>
> implausibilities,
>
> Please give examples?
>
> and
>
> > contradictions
>
> Please give examples?
>
> -- and a history of very similar stories of other holy
>
> > men that came before);
>
> Please give examples?
>
> we simply do not accept the bible's word for it
>
> > that Jesus existed.
>
> Why not . Don't you accept that Socrates existed . Don't you just take
> Plato's and aristotle's word for it?
>
> And that is a very much different thing than
>
> > merely "refusing" to believe something.

>
> > On Oct 14, 2:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even

> > > existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
> > > about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> > > because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> > > Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> > > believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> > > superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> > > prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> > > written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> > > but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> > > skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> > > The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> > > every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> > > reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> > > follow this line of reasoning. All historical sources are biased to
> > > some degree, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the
> > > bath water. Do skeptics believe Roman documents when they speak about
> > > Romans? Do you believe Jewish historians when they speak about Jewish
> > > history? If so why not believe Christian historians we they record

> > > Church history.- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

Wanting to Know something about the originator of a belief and idolizing him is not the same as following the philosophy.

Just because some people might want to engage in idol worship doesn't make it important or relevant.

People idolize Superman too. Does it mean he existed? Does it matter if he did?

It's just as irrelevant.

And if they want to convince me that he was real or existed they should be able to provide some proof.

Or why should I believe them.

There is literally no evidence to prove that Jesus existed. What little there is has been discredited.

His existence only matters to theists because of his purported divinity and their to desire to convince others as part of their proselytization campaigns.

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 1:46 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 12:43 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 15, 12:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > > > > > existed?
>
> > > > > Two reasons.
>
> > > > > 1.
> >http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-histori.
> > > > ..
> > > > > 2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --Carl Sagan.
>
> > > > It is not an extraordinary claim that Jesus existed.
>
> > > True. But there really isn't any evidence to support that he existed.
>
> > True if you reject the Gospels and Josephus, but you haven't given any
> > good reasons to reject this evidence.
>
> The Gospels cannot be used to prove their own historicity.

This has already been dealt with in my first post. I assume you had
read it.The gospels are four individual books grouped together and
called the gospels. Now if you get 4 Greek books that speak about the
same person and give them a name say gospel 2. Could one then be used
as evidence to back up what the others say? If for instance thay were
speaking about Alexander the Great.

>
> The references in Josephus are considered to be suspect.
>
>
>
> > > The Roman records for that period don't exist. The Bible offers two
> > > different places of birth
>
> > Only one Bethlehem please give verses if you know different.
>
> I believe that Mark refers to one and Luke the other but I don't recall the
> specific passages.
>
> Both Bethlehem and Nazareth are referred to as birth places for Jesus.
>
> I'll have to find them for you later or someone else might jump in with the
> references.
>
> > and there don't seem to be records for Mary or
> > > Joseph either.
>
> > Records. What records are you referring too?
>
> The Romans kept very detailed records of births, deaths, trials, etc.
>

This is an argument from silence often used by skeptics. It has been
debunked many times.
Most of these records have been lost. 2000 years from now there will
probably be no evidence that you and I existed , but that doesn't
prove we never lived.

> There should have been records of their births deaths and Jesus trial. There
> are none.
>

Again argument from silence. See above .Look it up if you don't know
what it is.

>
>
> > > In addition I believe there's some controversy over whether Nazareth even
> > > existed at the time of his birth.
>
> > Again please give evidence for this assertion(Not a skeptics website.A
> > respected archaeologist) the last time I spoke to an archaeologist
> > about this. They didn't know about any controversy.
>
> Any references I provide are my choice. Feel free to dispute them if you
> wish, but I usually provide references to articles which contain what I
> believe are valid references.
>
> Quote.
> Earliest history & archaeological evidence
>
> Archaeological research has revealed a funerary and cult center at Kfar
> HaHoresh, about two miles (3 km) from Nazareth, dating back roughly 9000
> years (to what is known as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic

> B<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_B>
>  era).[7] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-6> The remains of

> some 65 individuals were found, buried under huge horizontal headstone
> structures, some of which consisted of up to 3 tons of locally-produced
> white plaster. Decorated human skulls uncovered there have led
> archaeologists to believe that Kfar HaHoresh was a major cult centre in that

> remote era.[8] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-7>

>
> Chad Emmet authored a sociological study on modern Nazareth entitled "Beyond
> the Basilica: Christians and Muslims in Nazareth." This book attempts to
> "better understand how Christians and Muslims have managed to live together
> for centuries in relative peace in a region known for its ethnic and
> religious conflicts, and to determine to what degree they have remained
> segregated in religious-based

> quarters."[9]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-Emmett15-8>

> Emmett
> claims that archaeological excavations in the vicinity of the
> present-day Basilica

> of the Annunciation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_the_Annunciation>
>  and St. Joseph <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Joseph> have revealed

> pottery dating from theMiddle Bronze

> Age<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Bronze_Age> (2200

> to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron

> Age<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age> (1500
> to 586 BC).[9] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-Emmett15-8>

> However,
> excavations conducted prior to 1931 in the Franciscan venerated area
> revealed "no trace of a Greek or Roman settlement"

> there,[10]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-9> and

> according to studies written between 1955 and 1990, no archaeological

> evidence from Assyrian <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian>,
> Babylonian<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian>
> , Persian <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire>,
> Hellenistic<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenist> or
> Early Roman <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome> times have been
> found.[11] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-10>[12]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-11>

> Bagatti,
> the principal archaeologist at the venerated sites in Nazareth, unearthed

> quantities of later Roman <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome> and
> Byzantine <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine>
> artifacts,[13]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-12>

> attesting
> to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward.
>
> End Quote.
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Earliest_history_.26_archaeolog...

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 1:46 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> B<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_B>
>  era).[7] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-6> The remains of

> some 65 individuals were found, buried under huge horizontal headstone
> structures, some of which consisted of up to 3 tons of locally-produced
> white plaster. Decorated human skulls uncovered there have led
> archaeologists to believe that Kfar HaHoresh was a major cult centre in that

> remote era.[8] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-7>

>
> Chad Emmet authored a sociological study on modern Nazareth entitled "Beyond
> the Basilica: Christians and Muslims in Nazareth." This book attempts to
> "better understand how Christians and Muslims have managed to live together
> for centuries in relative peace in a region known for its ethnic and
> religious conflicts, and to determine to what degree they have remained
> segregated in religious-based

> quarters."[9]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-Emmett15-8>

> Emmett
> claims that archaeological excavations in the vicinity of the
> present-day Basilica

> of the Annunciation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_the_Annunciation>

>  and St. Joseph <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Joseph> have revealed

> pottery dating from theMiddle Bronze

> Age<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Bronze_Age> (2200

> to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron

> Age<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age> (1500
> to 586 BC).[9] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-Emmett15-8>

> However,
> excavations conducted prior to 1931 in the Franciscan venerated area
> revealed "no trace of a Greek or Roman settlement"

> there,[10]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-9> and

> according to studies written between 1955 and 1990, no archaeological

> evidence from Assyrian <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian>,
> Babylonian<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian>
> , Persian <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire>,
> Hellenistic<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenist> or
> Early Roman <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome> times have been
> found.[11] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-10>[12]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-11>

> Bagatti,
> the principal archaeologist at the venerated sites in Nazareth, unearthed

> quantities of later Roman <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome> and
> Byzantine <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine>
> artifacts,[13]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-12>

> attesting
> to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward.
>
> End Quote.
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Earliest_history_.26_archaeolog...

>
> > > That he came back
> > > > to life after 3 days is an extraordinary claim.
>
> > > Yes and this goes to his divinity. In addition there are two versions of
> > the
> > > story (in Matthew I believe).
>
> > Please give evidence for this?
>
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/resurrection.html
>

No can't find it in this link.

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 3:02 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 6:49 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
>
>
>
>
>

> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 4:52 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > This has nothing to do with it. The evidence of whether a person
> > > > existed or not has nothing to do with worshiping him.
>
> > > It has everything to do with it. As Random said, Why would we care if he
> > > existed or not except for the fact that Christians claim he's divine, the
> > > son of your god and you worship him.
>
> > ... because one is interested in one or more of his teachings? Would
> > non-theist Buddhists not care whether Gautama Siddharata existed
> > except for the fact that theist Buddhists treat him as divine?
>
> I don't see why Ranjit. If one is a non-theist what matters is what was
> said. The philosophy.
>
> I like the Carvakan philosophy. I don't know who originated it or what the
> source is. It would be interesting to know that but it's not critical to
> know that because I don't worship the originator.
>
> It only matters when you have to idolize someone as part of the belief.
>
>

You seem to be saying that you are not really interested in what
happened in history. Who said what ,where and why. Only the teaching
matters. This I find shocking. Don't you have any interest in
objective history?

>
> --
> Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
>
> "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our
> peril, risk and hazard."  ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
>
> "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert

[random]

First of all, written documents are not the only possible way to
support a historical event.
Coins, graves, remains of cities, as well as documents that doesn't
have a direct connection like tax reports or inventory lists.
Even documents are dated both by dating the material itself, and also
the language, and "writing style".

With Jesus, when it comes to proving his divinity, all we have is
stories that were written and edited by people who already believed he
was divine.

Imagine 2,000 years from today, the only remains of this era will be a
specific moderated website of a famous man (say, a politician).
All the events described will look real. The names of the cities will
match, the events described in the website will match real events and
his rivals will also be mentioned.
But of course, since the website is not objective, it will be
completely one sided, and not necessarily completely confirmed to be
true.

Even if that website will contain multiple users and writers, and many
different documents and articles, can it be trusted as an only source
to describe our era?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 3:33 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 5:52 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical
> > about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> > because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> > Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> > believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> > superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> > prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> > written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> > but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> > skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> > The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> > every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> > reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> > follow this line of reasoning. All historical sources are biased to
> > some degree, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the
> > bath water. Do skeptics believe Roman documents when they speak about
> > Romans? Do you believe Jewish historians when they speak about Jewish
> > history? If so why not believe Christian historians we they record
> > Church history.
>
> No one is telling you to live your life by Alexander's example, or
> you'll go to hell.

Why does this matter.This is beside the point.What the message is has
no bearing on whether the person existed or not. Many have preached
many different things, Buddha, Confucius,Muhammad. Makes no difference
to if they existed or not. It's the evidence that counts and there is
evidence that all these teachers existed.

> I generally take historical documents with a grain of salt since a lot
> of benefit of doubt is given to them.
>
> But the magnitude of that benefit is inversely proportional to the
> importance that document has if definitively proven true or false. The
> greater the importance, the less benefit of the doubt.
>
> So, if you concede that there is no importance to the Bible, and the
> salvation of any soul I may or may not have does not depend on me
> believing the Bible, then I'll give it the same due credit I give
> similar historical accounts of supernatural and miraculous happenings:

You have this back to front. You start by saying this has no
importance to me, so I don't give it any credit. First see if there s
evidence that it is true. If it is true then it has great importance
to you and everyone else.

>
> Probably based on some fact and factual characters, but also a
> combination of multiple stories and individuals with some pure fiction
> thrown in. Like Robin Hood, Alexander the Great, Gilgamesh, King
> Arthur, etc., etc.
>
> But so long as you purport the Bible to be some divine code by which I

> need to construct my life then provide some proof for your assessment.- Hide quoted text -

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 4:22 am, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Trance Gemini,
>
> > I'm well aware of the fact that there are many theists who believe that
> > anything that refutes their claims is "biased" and anything that they are
> > able to make fit their claims (no matter how suspect) is true.
>
> What the??! Is this meant to be an intelligent response to my post?
>
> Your comment is just one example of why I don't enjoy debating with
> atheists on this forum... their arguments frequently degenerate into
> mere ad hominem... i'm sorry to those few atheists who I may have
> misrepresented here... but there are certainly only a few of you.

deej again I have to agree with you on this one. This mirrors my
experience on this forum and others like it. Not that it's always the
Atheists and skeptics. Both sides has it fair share of those who only
want to generate more heat than light. Although it's hard to tell
them apart because you have to assume they are what they say they are.
They could be Atheists pretending to be Christians and vice verse.

[Drafterman]

It's a crucial part of the point.

> What the message is has
> no bearing on whether the person existed or not.

Oh, I agree. But we aren't talking about whether or not the person
actually existed, we are talking about why people believe or don't
believe he actually existed. That is, this is a discussion of belief,
not about truth. Belief, in my opinion, is more complicated.

You see, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me or my life
whether or not Alexander or Caeser or Socrates actually existed. It
doesn't matter if their lives happened the way we think they happend.
It just doesn't matter. Since the truth of these matters is of little
importance, I don't feel any issue with simply granting the accounts
the benefit of the doubt, and believe them.

Unfortunately, you and 2 billion other people insist that at the end
of the day it DOES matter (or, rather, SHOULD matter) whether or not
Jesus actually existed. It DOES/SHOULD matter if his life happened the
way you say it happened. Since the truth of the matter is, according
to you and all other Christians, of the utmost importance, I cannot
simply grant the story the benefit of the doubt and choose to believe
it.

> Many have preached
> many different things, Buddha, Confucius,Muhammad. Makes no difference
> to if they existed or not. It's the evidence that counts and there is
> evidence that all these teachers existed.

I agree and I believe that the Jesus myths have some kernal of truth
to them (well, some of them).

>
> > I generally take historical documents with a grain of salt since a lot
> > of benefit of doubt is given to them.
>
> > But the magnitude of that benefit is inversely proportional to the
> > importance that document has if definitively proven true or false. The
> > greater the importance, the less benefit of the doubt.
>
> > So, if you concede that there is no importance to the Bible, and the
> > salvation of any soul I may or may not have does not depend on me
> > believing the Bible, then I'll give it the same due credit I give
> > similar historical accounts of supernatural and miraculous happenings:
>
> You have this back to front. You start by saying this has no
> importance to me, so I don't give it any credit. First see if there s
> evidence that it is true. If it is true then it has great importance
> to you and everyone else.

It is only of great importance if the entire story is true, not simply
if someone named Jesus existed. What is the evidence that he was born
of a virgin, walked on water, doled out fish and bread to masses of
people, cured leprosy, healed the lame and blind, rose people from the
dead, died himself, went to hell, came back, appeared to people, rose
to heaven, etc.

I've seen 0 evidence for that. And since you argue it is of great
importance, I refuse to give it the benefit of the doubt.

>
>
>
>
>
> > Probably based on some fact and factual characters, but also a
> > combination of multiple stories and individuals with some pure fiction
> > thrown in. Like Robin Hood, Alexander the Great, Gilgamesh, King
> > Arthur, etc., etc.
>
> > But so long as you purport the Bible to be some divine code by which I
> > need to construct my life then provide some proof for your assessment.- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

Well feel free to debunk it again.

You have done nothing but

1. make silly assertions, which you refuse to support by ignoring requests to support them,
2. give no indication that you have even read the references provided in response to your comments,
3. Repeat the same questions which have been asked and answered ignoring the answers.
4. Every request I have made that you support your claims has been ignored.
5. You make smug, self-righteous, insulting remarks which are directed at all of the atheists here.

Are you actually interested in having a debate? Or are you just trolling?





 

[trog69]

I might be mildly interested, should actual video footage surface that
confirms to me that Jesus was a real person. Of course, I would remain
highly skeptical should I see the miracles and wonders attributed to
Mr. The Christ, present themselves on the video itself.

Prolly 'shopped and chopped vid anyways. Back then it took a lot
longer to doctor a clip, what with using Gimp and crappy graphics and
having to cut out JC's "Sarah Palin moments".



On Oct 14, 5:23 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 12:52 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  <snipped>

>
> > Well I think you're being a little insulting here by assuming that we're
> > all
> > > "confused".
>

> > No I didn't say you were all confused .I said you seemed to be
> > confused on this point.
>
> I was referring to your comments to the others as well as myself. You assume
> that we are confused when you don't understand something.

>
>
>
> > Perhaps you should ask what I meant because perhaps I just
> > > wasn't specific and assuming that you would know what I was talking
> > about.
>
> > > Plato and Aristotle refer to him.
>

> > Why should we trust Plato and Aristotle and not the gospels?May be
> > they just made him up like the Apostles are often accused of.
>
> Because it doesn't matter whether he existed. It matters what he said. Maybe
> they did make him up. Either way he was an interesting character and had
> some interesting things to say about the world. I doubt you'll find anyone
> who absolutely declares that he was real and that it matters to them.

>
> >  That's how we know he "existed". They
> > > refer to his writings which were interesting.
>
> > > No-one actually cares if he was a real person.
>

> > I don't think it's your place to decide that. You can't speak for
> > other people. Many historians and people care very much about if he
> > existed or not. Many care about historical truth.
>
> Who? What historians and people? Please be specific.
>
> What historical "truth" will be served by knowing whether he was a real
> person or not.
>
> Of course the more knowledge we have the better, but it makes not one iota
> of difference if he was a real person or not.
>
> <snipped>

[trog69]

> I certainly wouldn't be troubled at all by accepting that Socrates was
> merely a literary figure if there is more reason to suspect that he is
> one.

That seems to me to be one reason for our lack of concern; Atheists
don't have nearly as much riding on certain details of the past.

[Dag Yo]

Great post Trance. Seriously.

On Oct 15, 8:18 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:42 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

[Trance Gemini]

Then you're a liar.

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Dag Yo <sir_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Great post Trance.  Seriously.

Thanks Dag :-).

[deej]

Christians reject the apocrypha as 'gospel'. This doesn't mean we
don't use these as historical sources for Jesus' existence. The reason
they are not included in the Christian Bible is because of the fact
that, at the time of its composition, the general consensus was that
these documents had been written and were being endorsed and
distributed by splinter groups, with questionable theology or somewhat
distorted views of Christian doctrine, and were therefore not
appropriate to be included in the collection. These texts undoubtedly
have theological agendas, but this does not negate them as sources
supporting Jesus' existence.

They are assumed to contain mythical assertions because that was the
common belief of the early Christians. Containing some questionable,
even outlandish claims not supported by multiple attestation, they are
not considered as reliable as the New Testament documents in terms of
historical evidence, but they undoubtedly still offer support to the
assertion of Jesus' existence.

On Oct 15, 4:36 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 8:27 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 1:34 am, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You're totally straw manning here Trance. Maggsy is merely trying to
> > > figure out why you and other atheists don't accept that Jesus existed,
> > > despite the fact you do accept the existence of other historical
> > > figures, even though the historical evidence for their existence may
> > > be less credible than that of Jesus Christ. No-one is trying to
> > > 'impose' anything on you.
>
> > > Maggsy, I completely understand your frustrations. Those who dismiss
> > > the gospels simply because of their theological agendas are forgetting
> > > the bias inherent in all historical evidence. It is fallacious to
> > > argue that the author's bias invalidates their evidence.
>
> > Precisely this is my position.
>
> By that recknoning, shouldn't these gospels too be considered sources

> of historical information about Jesus?http://i-cias.com/e.o/apocryphal_gospels.htm

[Dag Yo]

Deej,
Could you tell me how you go about determining whether or not a claim
is true based upon the evidence you have before you -- and could you
use please use the historicity of Jesus as well as biblical and
apocryphal texts as evidence as an example of how you go about doing
this.

I'm quite curious to see whether or not you have any sort of tools
that allow you to even tell the difference between claims that are
true and claims that are not true.

[Darwins Right]

There are major differences in how atheists think, who are and should
be realists...and the religious. The religious have been hypnotized
since infancy..and fed dream pictures of god, jesus, and even mary and
the saints. Neurological imagining shows that when the religious feel
"spiritual" or close to god, the executive thinking part of the brain,
the forebrain, shuts down and they lose track of their senses, and
time and place. Thus, after entering into this "trance" state, they
feel as if they are "close to god"...and "god is in them," etc.
Groupies and Elvis fans when seeing their heroes feel the same thing.
Such so-called "spirituality" is explained by brain science.

After having so many "religious experiences" and losing any sense of
"time and place," in a self induced altered state of
consciousness...are no longer interested in proving anything to
anyone...they merely seek to be reinforce and repeat the experience of
so called "spirituality."

Other brain studies show that when involved in this so called
religious experience, the brains of the religious have increased blood
flow and neurological stimulation in the same areas as drug addicts.
Now isn't that interesting.

One of the reasons I really dislike religion is that religious do not
understand why its important to be truthful, or seek reality and proof
for what they believe....sounds familiar doesn't it. These are the
same mental and emotional characteristics of a drunk or a drug
addict...who are are also habitual liars. Religion makes it acceptable
to lie to one's self and others.

How the religious sometimes avoid "lying" outright, is to lie by
"omission." Meaning, when you ask the religious a logical question,
they refuse to answer. They are so habitually involved in this
religious trance state, that its easy for them to enter into denial as
a habit when faced with reality.

So, I don't think your question is going to go very far. I've asking
questions of the religious now for about 6 years online and in
person...and "denial" is the response I get about 98% of the time. The
rest of the time, the religious go into this routine of using
"blackmail, extortion, and threats"...stating that if you don't
"repent" and believe in their version of god, you are going to
"hell."

Instead of doing any research, as any other educated, logical and
reasonable person does...when asked a question...the religious either
have one of two paths, or both...Denial or Threats. Finally, after
about 6 years of research in the area of the psychology of the
religious, and it involves brain science, as I knew it eventually
would.

What this means, is that the religious have no more place to
hide...their brains and why they are religious feel "spiritual" have
been exposed. Denial and Threats by the religious just isn't going to
work anymore.

Hugs, Diana

[deej]

Dag, there are in fact many tools used by historians that enable them
to ascertain the authenticity of claims presented in evidence. I'm
really keen to answer this question for you, but unfortunately I don't
have time at the moment. If you can hold out for a day or so, I should
be able to give you some examples of these techniques and how they are
used in relation to the historicity of Jesus.

[Dag Yo]

Sounds good. I'm curious what sort of answer you will give But
listen, I'm not asking you about the the tools that historians use to
fact-check different claims (much less what techniques historians use,
and "how they are
used in relation to the historicity of Jesus") i'm asking what sort of
tools YOU use.

[Dag Yo]

Well I already got more of a reply than I expected but I wouldn't say
I have very high hopes that this continues in a reasonable manner.
Regarding your post though, here is what I really don't get; since
religious people clearly are capable of a great deal of cognitive
disonnance, why is it so bloody hard for them to just be honest with
people and say something reasonable along the lines of "I can't think
of anything that makes my beliefs the slightest bit reasonable, but I
believe them anyway".

Cheers.

[etienne]

On 15 oct, 19:55, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 4:22 am, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Trance Gemini,
>
> > > I'm well aware of the fact that there are many theists who believe that
> > > anything that refutes their claims is "biased" and anything that they are
> > > able to make fit their claims (no matter how suspect) is true.
>
> > What the??! Is this meant to be an intelligent response to my post?
>
> > Your comment is just one example of why I don't enjoy debating with
> > atheists on this forum... their arguments frequently degenerate into
> > mere ad hominem... i'm sorry to those few atheists who I may have
> > misrepresented here... but there are certainly only a few of you.
>
> deej again I have to agree with you on this one. This mirrors my
> experience on this forum and others like it. Not that it's always the
> Atheists and skeptics. Both sides has it fair share of those who only
> want to generate more heat than light. Although it's hard to tell
> them apart because you have to assume they are what they say they are.
> They could be Atheists pretending to be Christians and vice verse.
>

Not to mention the problems of understanding which can arise from the
limited means of communication we use.

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 3:33 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 14, 5:52 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even

> > existed? Why do you reject the gospels?Why are people so skeptical

> > about the gospels, but not about other historical works.They it is
> > because of the miracles, but if you read about Alexander the Great .
> > Miracles were attributed to him. Does this mean that Atheists don't
> > believe he existed. In the ancient world almost everyone was
> > superstitious. Many historical works speak about miracles and
> > prophecy's. Are they to be rejected as well or only when they are
> > written by Christians?If you want to be skeptical that is up to you ,
> > but at least be consistent with it. Personally I'm skeptical about
> > skepticism.Some say that you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.
> > The Bible is made up of 66 different books.So if we brought together
> > every Roman document together and call it one book we then have to
> > reject it all and can only rely on non Roman independent sources to
> > follow this line of reasoning. All historical sources are biased to
> > some degree, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the
> > bath water. Do skeptics believe Roman documents when they speak about
> > Romans? Do you believe Jewish historians when they speak about Jewish
> > history? If so why not believe Christian historians we they record
> > Church history.
>

> No one is telling you to live your life by Alexander's example, or
> you'll go to hell.

> I generally take historical documents with a grain of salt since a lot
> of benefit of doubt is given to them.
>
> But the magnitude of that benefit is inversely proportional to the
> importance that document has if definitively proven true or false. The
> greater the importance, the less benefit of the doubt.
>
> So, if you concede that there is no importance to the Bible, and the
> salvation of any soul I may or may not have does not depend on me
> believing the Bible, then I'll give it the same due credit I give
> similar historical accounts of supernatural and miraculous happenings:
>

> Probably based on some fact and factual characters, but also a
> combination of multiple stories and individuals with some pure fiction
> thrown in. Like Robin Hood, Alexander the Great, Gilgamesh, King
> Arthur, etc., etc.
>

Strange that you should put Alexander and Jesus in the same list as
Robin Hood and King Arthur. There is far more evidence for Jesus than
King Arthur and Robin Hood. Paul was writing only 20 years after
Jesus. This is a very short period of time compared to many other
works of ancient history.

> But so long as you purport the Bible to be some divine code by which I

> need to construct my life then provide some proof for your assessment.- Hide quoted text -

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 4:48 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 1:34 am, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > You're totally straw manning here Trance. Maggsy is merely trying to
> > > figure out why you and other atheists don't accept that Jesus existed,
> > > despite the fact you do accept the existence of other historical
> > > figures, even though the historical evidence for their existence may
> > > be less credible than that of Jesus Christ. No-one is trying to
> > > 'impose' anything on you.
>
> > > Maggsy, I completely understand your frustrations. Those who dismiss
> > > the gospels simply because of their theological agendas are forgetting
> > > the bias inherent in all historical evidence. It is fallacious to
> > > argue that the author's bias invalidates their evidence.
>

> > Precisely this is my position. They reject it because it's in the New

> > Testament which can't be evidence because the New testament is a book
> > of myths. This is a circular argument because they have never proven
> > it is a book of myths.
>

> Except for the fact that we're not discarding it because it's a book of
> myths.
>
> We're discarding it because there is no independent evidence available which
> supports it's contents.
>


What do you consider independent evidence. Anyone who wasn't a
Christian writing about Jesus?Do you reject Roman's writing about
Romans? Do you reject philosophers writing about philosophers?




> In the same way and for the same reason that we discard King Arthur as a
> myth.
>




No historical Scholars reject King Arthur as a myth because there are
no contemporary records of King Arthur at the time he was supposed to
have lived.
This totally different with Jesus . The gospels that you reject were
written with in about 60 years of Jesus being alive.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > They just assume it is because it has miracles in and that doesn't fit
> > in with their world view so must be discarded.
>

> >  If you
> > > promote this argument, then you cannot accept truth in any version of
> > > written history.
>
> > > On Oct 15, 10:52 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 15, 12:36 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 15, 12:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Maggsy <

> > davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that
> > Jesus even
> > > > > > > > > existed?
>

> > > > > > > > Two reasons.
>
> > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > >http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-histori
> > .

> > > > > > > ..
> > > > > > > > 2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --Carl
> > Sagan.
>

> > > > > > > > It boils down to the fact that most historical information does
> > not
> > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > us to worship an imaginary sky fairy and believe in "miracles"
> > which
> > > > > defy
> > > > > > > > the laws of physics.
>

> > > > > > > Many believe Jesus to be a historical person with out believing
> > in
> > > > > > > miracles. As for miracles defying the laws of physics that's your
> > > > > > > definition not mine.
>
> > > > > > And many don't. The controversy essentially is between theist
> > historians
> > > > > who
> > > > > > have a stake in proving the existence of Jesus and will accept very
> > low
> > > > > > standards to prove his existence and other historians (atheist and
> > > > > theist)
> > > > > > who apply objective standards to determine proof of his existence.
>
> > > > > > The point is that no-one is suggesting that we worship Socrates so
> > his
> > > > > > existence or lack of it doesn't really matter.

>
> > > > > This has nothing to do with it. The evidence of whether a person
> > > > > existed or not has nothing to do with worshiping him.
>

> > > > It has everything to do with it. As Random said, Why would we care if

> > he
> > > > existed or not except for the fact that Christians claim he's divine,
> > the
> > > > son of your god and you worship him.
>

> > > > >  What we're actually
> > > > > > interested in is what he wrote.
>
> > > > > Socrates didn't write anything or at least nothing that has survived.
> > > > > I think you are getting him confused with Plato and Aristotle.

>
> > > > Well I think you're being a little insulting here by assuming that
> > we're all

> > > > "confused". Perhaps you should ask what I meant because perhaps I just

> > > > wasn't specific and assuming that you would know what I was talking
> > about.
>

> > > > Plato and Aristotle refer to him. That's how we know he "existed". They

> > > > refer to his writings which were interesting.
>
> > > > No-one actually cares if he was a real person.
>

> > > > > > You want us to worship Jesus as the divine body of your god (or
> > however
> > > > > you
> > > > > > properly describe it). The standards for this proof automatically
> > become
> > > > > > higher
>
> > > > > Why do they become higher? It's up to you if you want to worship him
> > > > > or not I'm just discussing if he existed or not.
>
> > > > Feel free to worship any magical sky fairy you wish. Just don't try to
> > > > impose that belief on me.
>
> > > > If you wish to convince me that you're right then you'll have to
> > provide me
> > > > with proof that he existed, proof that he was divine, proof that your
> > bible
> > > > is the inerrant word of your god and proof that your god exists.
>
> > > > >  and his existence or lack of it then matters.

>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
>
> > > > > > "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue,
> > at our
> > > > > > peril, risk and hazard."  ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique,
> > 1764
>
> > > > > > "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the
> > dogmas of
> > > > > > ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of
> > superstition,
> > > > > > and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?"
> > > > > --Robert

> > > > > > Ingersoll.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>

> > > > --
> > > > Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
>
> > > > "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at
> > our
> > > > peril, risk and hazard."  ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
>
> > > > "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> > > > ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> > > > and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?"
> > --Robert

> > > > Ingersoll.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>

> --
> Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
>
> "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our
> peril, risk and hazard."  ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
>
> "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert

> Ingersoll.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

Really? I'd be interested in hearing the extensive comparisons you've
done.

> Paul was writing only 20 years after
> Jesus. This is a very short period of time compared to many other
> works of ancient history.

You think so? For example?

>
>
>
> > But so long as you purport the Bible to be some divine code by which I
> > need to construct my life then provide some proof for your assessment.- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 4:50 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 1:36 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > <snipped>
>
> > > > So you only care if some existed or not if some one is asking you to
> > > > worship them. you don't care if Socrates existed or if Alexander the
> > > > great existed? You don't care if they were just made up? You don't
> > > > care about historical truth?
>
> > > It's good to have as much information as possible. However, the fact is
> > that
> > > we don't know everything.
>
> > > We have indications that Alexander the Great was a real person, but what
> > if
> > > he wasn't? We still know that there was a King who did at least some of
> > the
> > > things credited to Alexander the Great because there is some
> > archaeological
> > > evidence to support the claims.
>
> > There is also archaeological evidence that support the claims of the
> > New Testament.
>
> Please feel free to provide this evidence.
>
>


For instance the Pool of Siloam. Which has been excavated. This is
mentioned in John chapter 9.Obviously this doesn't prove Jesus
existed, but it does prove that John is a reliable historian and isn't
just making up a story.





>
>
>
> > Also there is archaeological evidence that parts of
> > Homer's odyssey is true.
>
> > > We don't know if King Arthur existed and since we don't have
> > archaeological
> > > evidence to support that claim we assume until archaeological evidence
> > > proves otherwise that King Arthur is a myth. We do this despite the fact
> > > that the story refers to real places and provides some insight into the
> > > social lives and culture of the people at the time.
>


If you want archaeological evidence that a person existed then you
will have to disbelieve that many historical characters in history
ever existed.This standard of proof is a little unrealistic.




> > > <snipped>

>
> > > --
> > > Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
>
> > > "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our
> > > peril, risk and hazard."  ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
>
> > > "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> > > ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> > > and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?"
> > --Robert
> > > Ingersoll.
>
> --
> Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
>
> "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our
> peril, risk and hazard."  ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
>
> "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert

> Ingersoll.- Hide quoted text -

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 5:45 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 14, 8:30 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There is also archaeological evidence that support the claims of the
> > New Testament.

Until recently many considered that Pontius Pilate never existed and
was a made up character from the New Testament.Until the Pilate Stone
was found.This was another argument from silence that skeptics use all
the time.They often use the fact that Philo doesn't mention Jesus.
Another argument from silence.Forgetting that Jesus was just one of
many Rabbi teachers at that time leading a small obscure Jewish sect.
Philo didn't know that Christianity was going to be the greatest world
faith ever.



>
> Interesting. Which of the claims?

>
> > Also there is archaeological evidence that parts of
> > Homer's odyssey is true.
>

> Illiad, not Odyssey, AFAIK.



Yes you are right. My mistake.

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 6:39 pm, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 15, 7:14 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 1:46 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 15, 12:43 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:33 PM,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com>

> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 15, 12:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com>

> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Why do some on this message board refuse to believe that Jesus even
> > > > > > > > existed?
>
> > > > > > > Two reasons.
>
> > > > > > > 1.
> > > >http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/the-histori.
> > > > > > ..
> > > > > > > 2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof --Carl Sagan.
>
> > > > > > It is not an extraordinary claim that Jesus existed.
>
> > > > > True. But there really isn't any evidence to support that he existed.
>
> > > > True if you reject the Gospels and Josephus, but you haven't given any
> > > > good reasons to reject this evidence.
>
> > > The Gospels cannot be used to prove their own historicity.
>
> > This has already been dealt with in my first post. I assume you had
> > read it.The gospels are four individual books grouped together and
> > called the gospels. Now if you get 4 Greek books that speak about the
> > same person and give them a name say gospel 2. Could one then be used
> > as evidence to back up what the others say? If for instance thay were
> > speaking about Alexander the Great.
>
> First of all, written documents are not the only possible way to
> support a historical event.
> Coins, graves, remains of cities, as well as documents that doesn't
> have a direct connection like tax reports or inventory lists.

Yes of course I totally agree.

> Even documents are dated both by dating the material itself, and also
> the language, and "writing style".
>
> With Jesus, when it comes to proving his divinity, all we have is
> stories that were written and edited by people who already believed he
> was divine.
>

The is the straw man again that deej was talking about. No one is
discussing the divinity of Jesus. Have you been fol owing this
discussion. We are discussing evidence for his existence. His divinity
is a totally different subject.

> Imagine 2,000 years from today, the only remains of this era will be a
> specific moderated website of a famous man (say, a politician).
> All the events described will look real. The names of the cities will
> match, the events described in the website will match real events and
> his rivals will also be mentioned.
> But of course, since the website is not objective, it will be
> completely one sided, and not necessarily completely confirmed to be
> true.
>
> Even if that website will contain multiple users and writers, and many
> different documents and articles, can it be trusted as an only source
> to describe our era?
>

I assume you are suggesting that the gospels are one sided.
Do you think that Romans are one sided and bias when they record Roman
history. Do you then reject all Roman written history when recording
there own history?

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Maggsy]

On Oct 16, 2:51 am, Darwins Right <dwilso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are major differences in how atheists think, who are and should
> be realists...and the religious. The religious have been hypnotized
> since infancy.

This not true. Many are not brought up in homes to believe in God. I
myself don't come from a Christian family.

.and fed dream pictures of god, jesus, and even mary and
> the saints.

Not true unless you come from a catholic family.

Neurological imagining shows that when the religious feel
> "spiritual" or close to god, the executive thinking part of the brain,
> the forebrain, shuts down and they lose track of their senses, and
> time and place. Thus, after entering into this "trance" state, they
> feel as if they are "close to god"...and "god is in them," etc.
> Groupies and Elvis fans when seeing their heroes feel the same thing.
> Such so-called "spirituality" is explained by brain science.
>
> After having so many "religious experiences" and losing any sense of
> "time and place," in a self induced altered state of
> consciousness...are no longer interested in proving anything to
> anyone..

This is a generalisation.There are some exceptions, but it comes down
to faith at the end of the day. God never trys to prove himself. He
doesn't force any one to believe.

> > > > On Oct 14, 8:27 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 15, 1:34 am, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > > > You're totally straw manning here Trance.Maggsyis merely trying to

> > > > with their world view and therefore must be discarded.- Hide quoted text -

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 11:24 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not saying it's not there. I'm just saying I can't find it.
Perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Maggsy]

On Oct 16, 3:25 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well I already got more of a reply than I expected but I wouldn't say
> I have very high hopes that this continues in a reasonable manner.
> Regarding your post though, here is what I really don't get; since
> religious people clearly are capable of a great deal of cognitive
> disonnance, why is it so bloody hard for them to just be honest with
> people and say something reasonable along the lines of "I can't think
> of anything that makes my beliefs the slightest bit reasonable, but I
> believe them anyway".

Probably because they would be lying. Many can give good reasons for
what they believe. They may not seem like good reasons to you, but
that doesn't mean that there not good reasons.

> > > > > On Oct 14, 8:27 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 15, 1:34 am, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > > > > You're totally straw manning here Trance.Maggsyis merely trying to

> > > > > with their world view and therefore must be discarded.- Hide quoted text -

[Saint Onan]

On Oct 17, 1:30 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The is the straw man again that deej was talking about. No one is
> discussing the divinity of Jesus. Have you been fol owing this
> discussion. We are discussing evidence for his existence. His divinity
> is a totally different subject.

But the only documents we have that mention Jesus directly (apart from
the highly suspect passage from Josephus) are also the source for
claims that he was divine. If we can't grant credence to the claims
for divinity, because the supporting evidence is inadequate, then why
should we grant credence to the claims for existence?

> > Imagine 2,000 years from today, the only remains of this era will be a
> > specific moderated website of a famous man (say, a politician).
> > All the events described will look real. The names of the cities will
> > match, the events described in the website will match real events and
> > his rivals will also be mentioned.
> > But of course, since the website is not objective, it will be
> > completely one sided, and not necessarily completely confirmed to be
> > true.
>
> > Even if that website will contain multiple users and writers, and many
> > different documents and articles, can it be trusted as an only source
> > to describe our era?
>
> I assume you are suggesting that the gospels are one sided.
> Do you think that Romans are one sided and bias when they record Roman
> history. Do you then reject all Roman written history when recording
> there own history?

Yes, we can be CERTAIN that the Roman historians were partisan and
biased when they recorded Roman history. Read Sallust and Cicero on
the Catiliniarian conspiracy, for example, and you wonder how two
people can construct such different narratives when recording the same
events. But it's because there exist multiple independent lines of
evidence for most events in Roman history that it's possible to
confirm the accuracy of their reportage, and qualify the
uncertainties.

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 7:19 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 15, 1:50 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 3:33 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Why is it? You didn't answer my question.

>
> > What the message is has
> > no bearing on whether the person existed or not.
>
> Oh, I agree. But we aren't talking about whether or not the person
> actually existed, we are talking about why people believe or don't
> believe he actually existed. That is, this is a discussion of belief,
> not about truth. Belief, in my opinion, is more complicated.

Belief and truth should be the same thing. If it's not true it
shouldn't be believed.

>
> You see, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me or my life
> whether or not Alexander or Caeser or Socrates actually existed. It
> doesn't matter if their lives happened the way we think they happend.
> It just doesn't matter. Since the truth of these matters is of little
> importance, I don't feel any issue with simply granting the accounts
> the benefit of the doubt, and believe them.
>

This is my point people have always been more critical of the New
Testament than any other book precisely because it is not a normal
book. It does make demands and claims on our lives, but then again so
does the Koran and many other books. The more the New Testament is
criticised the more popular it is.it is still the best seller in the
world. Not that that makes it true, but it does show that Christianity
is going from strength to strength and as Jesus said the gates of hell
will not over come his Church.It's the same with Christians the most
of the time when they have been persecuted the Church has grown.

[Maggsy]

On Oct 15, 7:19 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 15, 1:50 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 3:33 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Some obliviously has to be taken on faith. You will never get absolute
proof for many things in life, but to say there is no evidence isn't
true.

[Answer_42]

On 16 oct, 23:55, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > You see, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me or my life
> > whether or not Alexander or Caeser or Socrates actually existed. It
> > doesn't matter if their lives happened the way we think they happend.
> > It just doesn't matter. Since the truth of these matters is of little
> > importance, I don't feel any issue with simply granting the accounts
> > the benefit of the doubt, and believe them.
>
> This is my point people have always been more critical of the New
> Testament than any other book precisely because it is not a normal
> book. It does make demands and claims on our lives, but then again so
> does the Koran and many other books. The more the New Testament is
> criticised the more popular it is.it is still the best seller in the

There is a distinction between "best seller" and "most printed"...

> world. Not that that makes it true, but it does show that Christianity
> is going from strength to strength and as Jesus said the gates of hell
> will not over come his Church.It's the same with Christians the most
> of the time when they have been persecuted the Church has grown.

______________________________________
Real morality is possible when the sanctions for morality are also
tangible and real.
-- Gora

[Answer_42]

On 16 oct, 21:57, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Strange that you should put Alexander and Jesus in the same list as
> Robin Hood and King Arthur. There is far more evidence for Jesus than
> King Arthur and Robin Hood. Paul was writing only 20 years after
> Jesus. This is a very short period of time compared to many other
> works of ancient history.

Care to provide source for this claim?
Also, care to prove to us that "Paul" actually existed?
Then, if you can establish that he did, care to prove that he was the
writer of those biblical passages that are officially atributed to him
by the church?

[Maggsy]

On Oct 16, 3:50 pm, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15 oct, 19:55,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 4:22 am, deej <buddweiser_serv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Trance Gemini,
>
> > > > I'm well aware of the fact that there are many theists who believe that
> > > > anything that refutes their claims is "biased" and anything that they are
> > > > able to make fit their claims (no matter how suspect) is true.
>
> > > What the??! Is this meant to be an intelligent response to my post?
>
> > > Your comment is just one example of why I don't enjoy debating with
> > > atheists on this forum... their arguments frequently degenerate into
> > > mere ad hominem... i'm sorry to those few atheists who I may have
> > > misrepresented here... but there are certainly only a few of you.
>
> > deej again I have to agree with you on this one. This mirrors my
> > experience on this forum and others like it. Not that it's always the
> > Atheists and skeptics. Both sides has it fair share of those who only
> > want to generate more heat than  light. Although it's hard to tell
> > them apart because you have to assume they are what they say they are.
> > They could be Atheists pretending to be Christians and vice verse.
>
> Not to mention the problems of understanding which can arise from the
> limited means of communication we use.
>

Yes it's easy for misunderstandings to happen when communicating like
this. No body language, no facial expressions, no tone of voice and
people are very often more insensitive because people are thousands of
miles away. All this doesn't help and needs to be kept in mind when
talking to each other on here.

>
>
>
>
> > > Do you agree or not, Trance,  with the idea that bias does NOT
> > > invalidate historical evidence. If you do agree, then it is quite
> > > obviously ridiculous to isolate the bias in the gospels and claim that
> > > it negates their testimony.
>
> > > Are there any other reasons you have for not regarding the gospels as

> > > reliable historical evidence?- Hide quoted text -

[Saint Onan]

On Oct 17, 2:55 pm, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This is my point people have always been more critical of the New
> Testament than any other book precisely because it is not a normal
> book. It does make demands and claims on our lives, but then again so
> does the Koran and many other books. The more the New Testament is
> criticised the more popular it is.it is still the best seller in the
> world. Not that that makes it true, but it does show that Christianity
> is going from strength to strength and as Jesus said the gates of hell
> will not over come his Church.It's the same with Christians the most
> of the time when they have been persecuted the Church has grown.

Supporting data, please? AFAIK it's when Christians have been doing
the persecuting that the Church has experienced its greatest growth.
cf the Christian Roman empire, Charlemagne, the conquistadors, and the
British and Dutch occupation of Africa.